Democracy - help me out here!

We don't really have democracy in this country, we are a Monarchy after all. Anything else is illusory. (Sat 24-Aug-19 17:15:06)

I don't think that is true. It sounds like it might make a good headline in a red-top Frinders, but the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy. Yes we have a constitutional monarchy and the Queen (currently) is the head of state but the legislature is Parliament.

I know they sometimes take a while to get a government sorted but as we can't pass the government's Bills through parliament I wonder if it wouldn't be worth the time spent to get a government formed that could actually do some work?

I can see us going on with a hung parliament for some time because, just as in Germany, Austria, and Italy we now have a more educated (in total) electorate than we had when we began to enfranchise more of the population.

If I had to go for a pause at the beginning or nothing achieved I know which one I prefer.

We don't really have democracy in this country, we are a Monarchy after all. Anything else is illusory. That said there has been an effort to have a sort of mini democracy. We vote for a person who we trust to do what is best for us. Party politics torpedoes this, but that doesn't destroy things entirely. We can still get at our elected members who cannot entirely ignore you if they wish to continue their career. So what else can go wrong, something Mr Goebels was very aware of - propaganda. If over a ten fifteen year period you feed the population with a diet of half truths and lies then this can derail democracy. The result is great isn't it.

GGMK3

Perhaps you could look at Germany / Austria /Italy for a starters.

PR is no more a safe form of government than First Past the Post, probably leads to more disruption.

I agree POGS, and it would make it impossible for the government nominally in power to get anything through Parliament because all the shifting alliances would conspire to thwart it.

Could you please give an example of where that has happened in one of the 94 countries that currently have some form of PR eazybee?

I found this part of an article in today's times an interesting point about how we currently run things. It's from an interview with Rory Stewart.

“The job in government I loved most was being prisons minister,” he says (he also served as international development secretary before resigning when Mr Johnson became prime minister). “Because there I really felt I was able to make a difference, identify problems, come up with a plan. We chose ten prisons and I had all the prison governors up to stay in this house for two and a half days. I visited all the prisons repeatedly, shadowed prison officers on the wings, went through every prison again and again, getting the figures, and we did reduce violence in prisons, and drugs, much more quickly than I thought we could.”

He had promised to resign if he did not succeed but statistics published this week suggest that he would have stayed on. Violence and drug use have fallen since last year at some of England’s “most challenging” prisons, according to the Ministry of Justice. Assaults fell by 16 per cent and failed drug tests also dropped across the ten prisons that were given extra security funding.

There is, however, a “sting in the tale”, he says. “The way government works is very odd. I was just 80 per cent through my prison reforms when they moved me to be secretary of state for international development. [Before that] I was just finishing my Africa strategy as Africa minister when they reshuffled me to become prisons minister. I had five ministerial jobs in four years. What does this tell you about [David] Cameron or Theresa May or Boris, do they really believe in ministers, do they respect them, or is it a sort of pantomime in which ministers are playthings designed to placate different parts of the party?”

(Article first published in The Times on 24 August 2019 by Magnus Linklater.)
www.rorystewart.co.uk/times-interview/?fbclid=IwAR2Tsh7QZixjDr5WK4U9LAqUVNZs9d5H4imbhjep_9xSrIK_kq0BydCwqfQ

I agree POGS, and it would make it impossible for the government nominally in power to get anything through Parliament because all the shifting alliances would conspire to thwart it.
Proportional Representation was rejected by 67% of the voters in 2011 but apparently that was not democratic enough for some.

There is much I feel needs to move forward in our democracy. PR is one, and I have posted previously about needing an English Parliament/Assembly. In whatever way we decided the members of the current "Lords" were put in place it would then become the upper-house for each of the countries and Parliament for all the UK. Hopefully, as we want strength in those who are our MPs we would pay them more too.

Yes they would to ensure the parties involved can form a coalition.

You only have to look at what tactical voting is for to understand it would still come into the same political shenanigans.

PS. Nobody would need tactical voting with PR.

Not necessarily true that it would be a supply arrangement with an unpopular minority party. PR would almost certainly mean that people would vote differently in the first place.

First Past the Post or Proportion Representation will inevitably leave somebody somewhere moaning their vote didn't count!

Proportional Representation means Coalition/Supply and Confidence Governments are possibly for ever and those who have been complaining about the Tories/DUP are weirdly promoting that should be how we are governed by calling for PR. .

Coalition/Supply and Confidence governments cannot only be ' acceptable ' if the political parties suit us as individuals!

Be careful what you wish for and what we get may take more shifting out of government than First Past the Post as backroom deals, tactical voting, political shenanigans will be even more the norm.

The Electoral Reform Society's report "Democracy Denied" shows just how undemocratic our First Past The Post electoral system actually is.

www.electoral-reform.org.uk/democracy-denied-as-report-reveals-how-voters-are-left-voiceless-across-england/

I don't disagree with you on PR Varian. It was one of my reasons for joining the SDP all those years ago. But my wish to change our democracy does not make it anti-democratic. It is democratic now and, as long the changes are made democratically, it will be democratic in the future.

With PR, the party with the most votes will almost never gain an absolute majority. That means that there have to be discussions with another party/parties. Inevitably that means that any extremist policies will be watered down, as they were with the 2010 coalition. I will never understand why Nick Clegg & Co never shouted from the rooftops what they actually achieved. They were only a minor party, so it wasn't much, but they did get some of their ideas passed.

However, we can't really look at past performance. If we had a PR system, there would have been more LibDem MPs, because the number of MPs would more accurately have reflected the number of votes cast and people might not have thought they were wasting a vote.

A PR system would almost certainly result in UKIP/Brexit MPs. I know some people would throw their hands up in horror at that, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to see what they'd do if they were actually made to walk the talk rather than constantly moaning.

In the long run, we would end up with more centrist governments (which wouldn't please everybody), but might end up displeasing fewer people than the current system does. It would mean that politicians from different parties would be forced to talk to each other (as they already do on some committees) and more views would be taken into account.

How?

Varian

That applies to both FPTP and PR.

Whether I don't agree with their politics is neither here nor there. Our FPTP system of electing MPs more often than not results in what the late Lord Hailsham, Quentin Hogg termed "elective dictatorship", in which a government gaining less than half the votes gets more than half the seats and can more or less do whatever it likes until the next election.

I say simply that the Tories votes (42.4%) combined with the votes of the DUP (0.9%) at the 2017 GE did not amount to 50% of the votes. Therefore they do not have claim to any real democratic legitimacy

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you Varian. They have the legitimacy of our democracy even though, politically, the deal stank. It's the politics that are wrong and we may want to change some of the form our democracy takes but those are two different things.

We really do have to be careful not to destroy our democracy - it's all we have and this overuse of "it's not democratic" threatens it. Also, in my opinion, "I don't agree with their politics" is more truthful.

"So my question is how would Proportional Representation give those who dislike, attack Coalition / Supply and Demand governments that ' do not suit them ' give them the answer to First Past the Post?"

It may not but it does seem that there is some political will to change it. I would see it as more grown-up politics but others will see it from a different perspective I have no doubt.

I say simply that the Tories votes (42.4%) combined with the votes of the DUP (0.9%) at the 2017 GE did not amount to 50% of the votes. Therefore they do not have claim to any real democratic legitimacy

Varian I think you make my point by saying:-

"Where the two coalition partners, or parties in an arrangement support a minority government have been elected by a majority of voters, that government would have a democratic legitimacy that the present Tory government with its DUP support, does not have.

It is not a case of whether people decide that a government "does not suit them", but whether it has been elected by a majority of those who voted.
---

The Conservative/DUP Supply and Confidence is perfectly legitimate but say it you say it is illigitimate because ' it does not suit you'.

Under Proportional Representation it does not follow that the 2/3 whatever number of political parties who can form a government have been elected by the 'majority of voters.'. The parties with the highest number of votes under PR could be polar opposites and refuse to work with each other and backroom deals will still take place with one party who has the most votes leading the negotiations. More or less Status Quo but it sounds more democratic.

Under PR there remains the same situation as with First Past The Post and voters could possibly still get a government that is polar opposite and ' will not suit them'.

The principle of either FPTP or PR will inevitably still cause ' some ' to moan about their vote counting for nothing or challenging the make up of the Coalition unless ' it sits them ' and hypocritically they will under those circumstances be happy, until the next time when the Coalition ' does not suit them'.

On and on it goes.

I'm not sure I've understood your question, POGS but I think those who campaign for PR have always accepted that it will tend to lead to coalitions as in a multi-party system it is very unlikely that one party will gain more than 50% of the vote.

Where the two coalition partners, or parties in an arrangement support a minority government have been elected by a majority of voters, that government would have a democratic legitimacy that the present Tory government with its DUP support, does not have.

It is not a case of whether people decide that a government "does not suit them", but whether it has been elected by a majority of those who voted.

Question

Lib Dems and other parties want to scrap the First Past the Post system for Proportional Representation.

Both systems can obviously return a party with no overall majority and hence the Coalition Government or Supply and Demand government is required.

If Gordon Brown for example had managed to get a coalition government with the Lib Dems and not the Conservatives the voices that perpetually cry foul over the Coalition Government / Supply and Demand would no doubt, hypocritically, have felt that government would be fit for purpose because it suited their politics.

We have a Conservative / DUP Supply and Demand government and that is not acceptable to many because it ' does not suit ' their politics. That is hypocrisy. It is only accepting '' The Principle ' of a Coalition /Supply and Demand government if and when it suits the individual and they ' like ' the outcome of the political parties involved.

Proportional Representation will inevitably lead to permant Coalition/Supply and Confidence governments so be careful what you wish for .

Those wanting Proportional Representation will have to accept a Coalition Government or Supply and Confidence government will be inevitable. If that Coalition were for the sake of agrguement a government formed between the Conservatives/Brexit Party they will still not accept Proportional Representation unless it returns their Political Party into Government. They might not like what Proportional Representation returns!

So my question is how would Proportional Representation give those who dislike, attack Coalition / Supply and Demand governments that ' do not suit them ' give them the answer to First Past the Post?

Democracy cannot make a judgement Varian, people do. I imagine the idea of FPTP felt okay when people had only just got the vote. To change our democracy is a political act and is not brought about by saying it isn't fair. We choose. We vote for politicians who choose. "Democracy" cannot choose. It is the overuse of the word that is distracting us.

Is politician A voting for a fairer system? That is the question. It is our system and our democracy.